There has never really been a universally accepted definition, but I recall as recently as a few years ago, the definition ran something like 4 or more persons, not including the shooter(s), killed by gunfire, in a single incident, and not connected to any sort of other criminal enterprise or activity.

That last part was important, because it meant that gang shootings, drug turf wars, heck, even the St. Valentine's Day Massacre, didn't qualify.

I was in a business this afternoon that had PBS on the TV, talking about the Walmart shooting, and they seemed to have lowered the bar on the definition to simply 4 or more people shot.

Yes, the definition has been changed so the media, Democrats, and gun grabbers can claim there are hundreds if not thousands of mass shootings per year.

Never mind that most of them are drug/gang related, or domestic incidents, it gives them a number to toss out so they can try to ban and confiscate guns.

White liberals are evil, it's as simple as that.

Same way Clinton changed the definition of a school shooting to further his agenda.

Politics is a stench on everything.

Most are drive by shootings

There is no agreed upon definition, even by different groups that keep track of mass shootings. Some say 3 people, some say 4, some say fatally shot, some say just injured, some include the shooter, some do not.

An article from April 2021 that goes over it.

https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis/essays/mass-shootings.html

Different people use different definitions depending on the statement they want to make. The article above shows that in 2019, there were between 6 and 503 mass shootings, depending on which definition you use.

For myself, I've viewed it similar to what C@LAg said:

Quote:

---

All shootings are criminal events, but generally a mass shooting is a non-reciprocal event where the victims generally would not be expected to be in danger (e.g., not involved in a criminal activity).

---

This excludes a lot of gang related violence, because it's often retaliatory or at least an ever present risk.

It should also exclude an attack towards a single person where bystanders are hit as well. I would also add that a mass shooting in my mind is where the shooter chooses the situation and location with the intention of inflicting mass casualties on people who otherwise have no reason to expect violence to occur. The Colorado Springs non-binary shooter fits this for me.

kb2001 said:

---

There is no agreed upon definition, even by different groups that keep track of mass shootings. Some say 3 people, some say 4, some say fatally shot, some say just injured, some include the shooter, some do not.

An article from April 2021 that goes over it.

https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis/essays/mass-shootings.html

Different people use different definitions depending on the statement they want to make. The article above shows that in 2019, there were between 6 and 503 mass shootings, depending on which definition you use.

For myself, I've viewed it similar to what C@LAg said:

Quote:

---

All shootings are criminal events, but generally a mass shooting is a non-reciprocal event where the victims generally would not be expected to be in danger (e.g., not involved in a criminal activity).

---

This excludes a lot of gang related violence, because it's often retaliatory or at least an ever present risk.

It should also exclude an attack towards a single person where bystanders are hit as well. I would also add that a mass shooting in my mind is where the shooter chooses the situation and location with the intention of inflicting mass casualties on people who otherwise have no reason to expect violence to occur. The Colorado Springs non-binary shooter fits this for me.

---

Well-defined to be sure, but is there any aggregation of these events by your definition?

don't mass shooters have to be white to be classified that way. when the are not the event is memory holed or we never get a clear description of the shooter.

Does it matter? It's multiple deaths.

BigOil said:

---

Does it matter? It's multiple deaths.

---

Yes, because now it's being used to gut 2A.

First you gotta check the demographics of the perpetrator and the victims. Then you gotta check their politics and lifestyle.

schmellba99 said:

---

Same way Clinton changed the definition of a school shooting to further his agenda.

Politics is a stench on everything.

---

This Clinton?

The funny part is grammatically, Clinton's response had validity from a carefully parsed legal perspective. He spoke like a lawyer there. In the bigger context it was also trying to hide behind semantics and technicality.

MouthBQ98 said:

---

The funny part is grammatically, Clinton's response had validity from a carefully parsed legal perspective. He spoke like a lawyer there. In the bigger context it was also trying to hide behind semantics and technicality.

---

He made a BJ not sex. I salute the man

Gang violence is overwhelmingly minority on minority which makes it irrelevant to the political establishment except to the extent that it can be used to argue for disarming law abiding citizens of all races.

Yep and they don't want to even report those shootings